User Panel
Posted: 5/29/2013 11:12:44 AM EST
With the demise of Global Warming, exposed as a fraud by the UEA fiasco, and cooling temperatures since 1996; and with the failure of the follow on names of "Global Climate Disruption" and "Global Climate Change" which collapsed with the veracity of the GCMs, we are reduced to this:
Forget Global Warming, just speak of the evils of Greenhouse Gasses |
|
|
I thought you had to burn that clutter out pretty frequently or it got over-grown and became a huge fire hazard. Don't tell me the Fed's have fucked this simple equation up too?
|
|
Link to concrete climate change debunking please.
Are vaccines evil too? |
|
Quoted:
Link to concrete climate change adverse impacts of greenhouse gasses debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? Check the OP for hints, then go to Google. Vaccines are a necessary component of herd management. Are you trying to change the subject? Haha, the underlying theology of the Church of Global Warming is anything but concrete. As predicted so long ago, the Landscheidt Minimum is upon us. |
|
Quoted:
Meanwhile Al Gore is sitting in his POWER HUNGRY mansion, laughing at all the gullible dolts out there... http://www.freewebs.com/targetblog/Al_Gore.jpg THANK YOU, YOU GULLIBLE DOLTS. FIFY |
|
Quoted:
I thought you had to burn that clutter out pretty frequently or it got over-grown and became a huge fire hazard. Don't tell me the Fed's have fucked this simple equation up too? Natural burning is a part of forestation. Frequent unnatural burning is harmful to the ecosystem. We recreate natural burning in areas because we prevent unnatural burning at the same time. |
|
Quoted:
Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? You can't be serious. Wait........you're serious? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meanwhile Al Gore is sitting in his POWER HUNGRY mansion, laughing at all the gullible dolts out there... http://www.freewebs.com/targetblog/Al_Gore.jpg THANK YOU, YOU GULLIBLE DOLTS. FIFY Tru dat; I swear that every time I hear that "The Earth has a fever" Schpiel he said once; I want to find him and punch him in the mouth; so he can get a 10,000 dollar dental job to match his 300 dollar haircuts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? You can't be serious. Wait........you're serious? I'm afraid he is. And he votes! |
|
Quoted: Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? Weapons grade stupid. |
|
Meh....no problem all the increased hurricanes caused by anthropogenic warming will put the increased fires caused by anthropogenic warming right out.
|
|
Quoted:
Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? Thought I might get in before this type of post. Guess not. |
|
Quoted: Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? You know how I know you're stupid? |
|
|
Quoted: Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? humans contribute to climate change, the problem is it has always been oversold one example: For years they've been screaming that if we didn't do something, by the year 2100 the ave temp would have gone up by 6 degrees. That level of change in the next century would be very hard for us to cope with. They have since settled on a more realistic number of 2 degrees, which is a lot easier to deal with. Climate alarmism has been debunked. Climate change is real, but crippling our industry is the wrong way to go to fix it. We need technology to cope with the any future climate change (whether its a much hotter or much cooler earth) |
|
Quoted: ... and cooling temperatures since 1996... i've seen climate data showing a lack of statistically significant warming since 1996, but i have not seen data that show cooling. could you link to that data please? |
|
Quoted: Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? And mothman is real. Nice strawman there junkie. How about you debate the facts before I stomp your fragile psyche into the manure pile? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
... and cooling temperatures since 1996... i've seen climate data showing a lack of statistically significant warming since 1996, but i have not seen data that show cooling. could you link to that data please? Sift through the NASA satellite data. Here. And if you like charts, look here. |
|
Quoted:
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc23/tcrpe/Capturel_zps476388ac.png I wish he'd lived to see this. http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sunssbam1620to2180gs.jpg What sun cycles control the warming and cooling of a planet no way! |
|
Did your kid draw that? |
|
If the truth stopped them, they wouldn't be around. The will never stop man, they want to control everything that you do. They will just move on to the next hot topic that the general populace eats up 'for their own good'.
And if you have to ask who 'they' is...hmmm.... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... and cooling temperatures since 1996... i've seen climate data showing a lack of statistically significant warming since 1996, but i have not seen data that show cooling. could you link to that data please? Sift through the NASA satellite data. Here. And if you like charts, look here. I like you . Want to grab a drink? The climate is controlled by water vapor, not carbon dioxide. |
|
Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked.
|
|
Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. |
|
Allow logging in the "natural" parks. It helps create fire breaks and produces an opportunity to sequester MORE CO2 through new growth. In Georgia wild fires were part of the natural process of long-leaf pine forest. In some of the remaining stands they actually set "wild fires" to help the forest.
The underlying message from these "mud-hut" environmentalist is that humans are bad. They want to do anything and everything they can to make it harder for humans. There are sensible compromises. Perhaps we shouldn't fight so many "wild fires". We need to let them burn and save the money. Fire is part of the natural cycle. If people are in high risk areas they need to take precautions. Either do what they can to prevent wildfires from getting close to their homes, or move. People who decide to build on the coast deal with nature in much the same way.
|
|
How is is the logging industry doing in the areas they are talking about? I've heard that logging can help reducing such fires.
Any downtick in the number acres logged that may be correlating to these busy fire seasons? |
|
Quoted:
Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? LOL !!! wait what? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And is has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. A legacy of failed computer models, academic fraud, fudged data, secrecy, and bullying. The entire climate record, as "created" and maintained by UEA CRU is a fraud. Use it as a foundation, you're a fraud. Oh, yea, that as "bunked" as it's ever been. |
|
Quoted: Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And is has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. A legacy of failed computer models, academic fraud, fudged data, secrecy, and bullying. The entire climate record, as "created" and maintained by UEA CRU is a fraud. Use it as a foundation, you're a fraud. Oh, yea, that as "bunked" as it's ever been. "Its a conspiracy" ETA::Love these threads because they prove my sig line. If you guys don't believe in global warming, how come you come you try so hard to dry to discredit it? You must hate climatologists and AGW so much. |
|
Quoted: How is is the logging industry doing in the areas they are talking about? I've heard that logging can help reducing such fires. Any downtick in the number acres logged that may be correlating to these busy fire seasons? Logged acreage IS better managed. Local fire control is able to respond quicker thanks to roads built to haul timber. Undergrowth is managed which reduces the chances of fire crowning. A few years ago, a forest in central Texas burned horribly because it was extensively protected to include removal of forest litter. Areas of this forest in private hands fared much better. I wait VT's response with regards to forestry practices and wildfires. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. They may be scientists but they cannot explain in less than 1000 words the cause of each layer of the atmosphere. Nor do they have any rigorous studies in heat transfer or thermodynamics. These are socially promoted sophomores. They learned how to run before they knew how to crawl. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Link to concrete climate change debunking please. Are vaccines evil too? And mothman is real. Nice strawman there junkie. How about you debate the facts before I stomp your fragile psyche into the manure pile? Do it! Just for fun, please, please, please |
|
Forests are the ultimate renewable resource. Trees are awesome, use them, they grow back.
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.
Quoted:
Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. Yea, the very guys the poured the sum total of their intellect into their failed models. Hockey Stick, anyone? Singer at MIT says its all crap. And, he accurately predicted the failure of the GCMs. |
|
As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no significant warming occurred during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
There is no proof that the observed warming from roughly 1970 until 2000 was caused by anthropogenic sources...there is no causal link and the climate models are revised continually because the predicted events never matches measurable data. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... and cooling temperatures since 1996... i've seen climate data showing a lack of statistically significant warming since 1996, but i have not seen data that show cooling. could you link to that data please? Sift through the NASA satellite data. Here. And if you like charts, look here. ok, cool. so you're saying that NASA produces reliable temperature records. just wondering where you stood. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. Yea, the very guys the poured the sum total of their intellect into their failed models. Hockey Stick, anyone? Singer at MIT says its all crap. And, he accurately predicted the failure of the GCMs. Oh, so we shouldn't believe most scientists, but believe one guy at MIT, because he is smarter. Oh okay, makes sense. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.
Quoted:
Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. Beat yourself |
|
Quoted: If only you could publish a paper explaining why they are wrong, it would be pretty epic.Quoted: Quoted: Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. They may be scientists but they cannot explain in less than 1000 words the cause of each layer of the atmosphere. Nor do they have any rigorous studies in heat transfer or thermodynamics. These are socially promoted sophomores. They learned how to run before they knew how to crawl. |
|
Quoted: Forests are the ultimate renewable resource. Trees are awesome, use them, they grow back. Wood grows IN trees . Now, on the nature of the atmosphere... The Troposphere is named as such because it is MIXING. Convection is the primary heat transfer mode, mean free path is measured in microns thanks to the effects of a thick atmosphere laden with water vapor. There is a lapse rate based on heat rejection to overlaying atmosphere which is inversely proportional to water vapor concentration which decreases with altitude. The Stratosphere is named because it is STRATIFIED. Much like a thermocline in a lake/ocean. Heat rises. Mean free path is measured in millimeters and water vapor concentration is uniform and low. Heat rejection is naturally greatest at the Stratopause, the altitude of greatest temperature and approach to zero in the temperature rate of change. The Mesosphere again sees a lapse rate but due to mean free path increasing to centimeters. Here is where radiational heat rejection dominates. Guess what? Only sounding rockets can study this layer. Yet the hubris laden climate "scientists" think they know EVERYTHING on how the climate functions. Balderdash. They don't even have a good idea of heat rejection at the Stratopause. So now, if you THINK the climate is controlled at the lowest boundary layer, guess again. You don't know how to create a representative model. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, apparently most scientists in the field don't agree with you.Quoted: Guess I must have missed something, "Global warming" hasn't been debunked. And it has never been "bunked" in the first place. Hypothesis based on incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics. Beat yourself You are telling me to masturbate? Thats...uh...odd. |
|
Its been known for a long time that whatever the climate is doing, its not a simple function of the sun. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.